Democrats Stacking Deck Against Progressives

Surrealistik said:

Scale thumbing like this _certainly_ isn't about unity either, as it does indeed piss the FDR/Bernie wing off and reopen/expand old 2016 divisions.

Click to expand...

While I agree about the scale thumbing, as others have pointed out, right now the objective is to triage a blue wave so that we can stop the hemorrhaging. We have a lot of stuff to work out in the future but for now the obective is to win back both chambers of Congress.

Re Bernie, much as I love the old fart, he did a bangup job damaging his own brand.
You already called it spot on, when you labeled it the FDR/Bernie wing.
It's really, the FDR wing because Bernie Sanders has basically BEEN an FDR New Deal liberal Democrat ever since he came to Congress but for some stupid reason he's sentimental about calling himself "a democratic socialist".

Stupid? Yeah, just ask the actual Democratic Socialists of America (!)
Their response when he announced his candidacy?

"Yawn, what a sellout"
"Ehhh, not a real socialist."

Yeah, they were right, he wasn't, and he isn't.
He's like some ex-hippie turned stockbroker who still wears his "Wavy Gravy" tee shirt underneath his three piece suit and keeps a tiny tuft of long hair all rubber banded up during the day, then lets it loose when he gets home.

"Oh yeah, lettin' muh freek flag fly, doodz"...while listening to the Trans-Siberian Orchestra, don't make me puke.

The FDR wing of the Democratic Party is something deserving of a little more TLC and respect, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. For now, we need some unity, so I am willing to vote for unity. Stop letting good be the enemy of perfect, or perfect being the enemy of good.
We cannot allow another two years of the GOP trifecta with the Vulgar Talking Yam in the WH.

Remember, split government isn't always terrible, unless we spend too much time focusing on
"L'enfante terribles".

Checkerboard Strangler said:

While I agree about the scale thumbing, as others have pointed out, right now the objective is to triage a blue wave so that we can stop the hemorrhaging. We have a lot of stuff to work out in the future but for now the obective is to win back both chambers of Congress.

Re Bernie, much as I love the old fart, he did a bangup job damaging his own brand.
You already called it spot on, when you labeled it the FDR/Bernie wing.
It's really, the FDR wing because Bernie Sanders has basically BEEN an FDR New Deal liberal Democrat ever since he came to Congress but for some stupid reason he's sentimental about calling himself "a democratic socialist".

Stupid? Yeah, just ask the actual Democratic Socialists of America (!)
Their response when he announced his candidacy?

"Yawn, what a sellout"
"Ehhh, not a real socialist."

Yeah, they were right, he wasn't, and he isn't.
He's like some ex-hippie turned stockbroker who still wears his "Wavy Gravy" tee shirt underneath his three piece suit and keeps a tiny tuft of long hair all rubber banded up during the day, then lets it loose when he gets home.

"Oh yeah, lettin' muh freek flag fly, doodz"...while listening to the Trans-Siberian Orchestra, don't make me puke.

The FDR wing of the Democratic Party is something deserving of a little more TLC and respect, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. For now, we need some unity, so I am willing to vote for unity. Stop letting good be the enemy of perfect, or perfect being the enemy of good.
We cannot allow another two years of the GOP trifecta with the Vulgar Talking Yam in the WH.

Remember, split government isn't always terrible, unless we spend too much time focusing on
"L'enfante terribles".

Click to expand...

I think Bernie was trying to detoxify the 'socialism' word personally, which he has largely been successful at, though it's true he's much more a social democrat than a democratic socialist. I'm not sure what damage he's done to his brand however, that hasn't been grossly exceeded by the establishment wing opposite him.


I may ultimately forgive betrayals by the corporate/third way wing when it comes time to vote and I'm forced to pick between them and a worse alternative, but I will never forget them, nor will I fail to hold the party to account or expose those who engage in these inexcusable acts of factional power plays, and naked hypocrisy; these should be called out for what they are, and this sort of behaviour should never get a free pass. It needs to stop.

How can these assholes call for 'unity' when they're actively stoking the fires of division with this kind of egregious scale jumping? When they have, and continue to actively attack and sabotage the progressive/FDR wing of the party in a desperate attempt to hold onto power in defiance of the zeitgeist? The establishment brass is largely a bunch of ****eating, wagon circling hypocrites, and they have no legitimacy whatsoever; literally the only thing these scumbags have going for them is that they're not Republicans.

MrPeanut said:

I'm mad because democrats don't get good results. [...]

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? We won the popular vote by 3 million (no one could have forseen the fluke of the electoral college). We won the last several special elections. In heavily red states, we are making strong inroads. Dems are doing just fine.

Surrealistik said:

I think Bernie was trying to detoxify the 'socialism' word personally, which he has largely been successful at, though it's true he's much more a social democrat than a democratic socialist. I'm not sure what damage he's done to his brand however, that hasn't been grossly exceeded by the establishment wing opposite him.

Click to expand...

Bernie has made tq strategic errors during the last primary. 1. He never joined the Democratic party or supported them in the past, and only did so during the primary out of expedience. he cant expect the DNC to choose him over Hillary, who has been a party supporter most of her life 2. He labeled himself as a socialist when, in fact, he is not a socialist, he is, as you say, a social democrat. By labeling himself as a socialist, he's making it hard for his backers or anyone running on a similar platform, for now, they are being labeled as socialists, and the right is red baiting us like crazy (though they would anyway).

I may ultimately forgive betrayals by the corporate/third way wing when it comes time to vote and I'm forced to pick between them and a worse alternative, but I will never forget them, nor will I fail to hold the party to account or expose those who engage in these inexcusable acts of factional power plays, and naked hypocrisy; these should be called out for what they are, and this sort of behaviour should never get a free pass. It needs to stop.

How can these assholes call for 'unity' when they're actively stoking the fires of division with this kind of egregious scale jumping? When they have, and continue to actively attack and sabotage the progressive/FDR wing of the party in a desperate attempt to hold onto power in defiance of the zeitgeist? The establishment brass is largely a bunch of ****eating, wagon circling hypocrites, and they have no legitimacy whatsoever; literally the only thing these scumbags have going for them is that they're not Republicans.

Click to expand...

Perez has deemed that, in order to win elections, we must run moderates, especially in the red states. So far, he's been winning elections, and making inroads to heavily red states. I say get dems elected first, then we move on details, platforms, values, etc.

AustralianuS said:

Democrats have learned from the Bernie Sanders movement. But not what Sanders supporters want them to learn. Instead, they are doing everything they can to marginalize progressives and practically rigging primaries against them. They are doing everything they can to shut out non-Establishment candidates.

The DCCC are behind the influence:



https://theintercept.com/2018/04/26/steny-hoyer-audio-levi-tillemann/

?Rigging? Primaries Is Fine. Backing Bad Candidates Isn?t.



https://m.sfgate.com/news/article/Rep-Pelosi-defends-party-intervention-in-12866653.php

By squeezing out progressives you can pretty much kiss the following goodbye:
Decriminalization of drugs
Justice reform
Universal healthcare
free post secondary education
Wall Street reform

I remember a lot of Democrats saying, after 2016, that the party would be forced to change and become more democratic. What do you think now that it is clear the exact opposite is happening?

Click to expand...

With the Dofus in Chief the time to act is in Nov, regardless of fractures in the party. The only party in worse shape then the Dems is the GOP with Trump. I like my CIC with a smidgen of integrity, that's not Trump.

OscarLevant said:

Bernie has made tq strategic errors during the last primary. 1. He never joined the Democratic party or supported them in the past, and only did so during the primary out of expedience. he cant expect the DNC to choose him over Hillary, who has been a party supporter most of her life 2. He labeled himself as a socialist when, in fact, he is not a socialist, he is, as you say, a social democrat. By labeling himself as a socialist, he's making it hard for his backers or anyone running on a similar platform, for now, they are being labeled as socialists, and the right is red baiting us like crazy (though they would anyway).

Click to expand...

I don't recall people not voting for Bernie in the primary on the basis of his self-identification as a democratic socialist. The only impact of doing so it seems, so far as I can tell, is to further detoxify/blunt socialism as a political epithet.

As to 'not supporting the Democratic party in the past' that's just untrue, as he has long caucused with and helped fundraise for the party. I will admit that declining membership certainly didn't do him any favours during the primary, though the DNC shouldn't be 'choosing' anyone, particularly if it claims, as it did, to be honest and impartial which it clearly wasn't.

Perez has deemed that, in order to win elections, we must run moderates, especially in the red states. So far, he's been winning elections, and making inroads to heavily red states. I say get dems elected first, then we move on details, platforms, values, etc.

Click to expand...

Details, platforms and values are precisely what get Dems elected.

Again, I don't mind the party intervening in cases where a certain type of candidate is clearly the superior choice, and there's evidence to confirm this; the problem is that it is not doing that.

By the way, you'll never see the DCCC supporting a progressive over a moderate, even in highly progressive ridings.

OscarLevant said:

What are you talking about? We won the popular vote by 3 million (no one could have forseen the fluke of the electoral college). We won the last several special elections. In heavily red states, we are making strong inroads. Dems are doing just fine.

Click to expand...

Winning the popular vote, but failing to win the EC, and thus the presidency against the worst candidate the Republicans have ever fielded (and with unforced errors to boot) is not success; nor is losing the House and Senate.

Yes, we are making progress _now_, but 2016 and prior was an absolute bona fide demolition of the Democrats under establishment rule.

OscarLevant said:

What are you talking about? We won the popular vote by 3 million (no one could have forseen the fluke of the electoral college). We won the last several special elections. In heavily red states, we are making strong inroads. Dems are doing just fine.

Click to expand...

What did winning the popular vote get us? Democrats are only making inroads because literally the worst republican possible became the president. What happens when Trump is gone and we have a Pence type as president?

Surrealistik said:

I don't recall people not voting for Bernie in the primary on the basis of his self-identification as a democratic socialist. The only impact of doing so it seems, so far as I can tell, is to further detoxify/blunt socialism as a political epithet.

As to 'not supporting the Democratic party in the past' that's just untrue, as he has long caucused with and helped fundraise for the party. I will admit that declining membership certainly didn't do him any favours during the primary, though the DNC shouldn't be 'choosing' anyone, particularly if it claims, as it did, to be honest and impartial which it clearly wasn't.

Details, platforms and values are precisely what get Dems elected.

Again, I don't mind the party intervening in cases where a certain type of candidate is clearly the superior choice, and there's evidence to confirm this; the problem is that it is not doing that.

By the way, you'll never see the DCCC supporting a progressive over a moderate, even in highly progressive ridings.

Winning the popular vote, but failing to win the EC, and thus the presidency against the worst candidate the Republicans have ever fielded (and with unforced errors to boot) is not success; nor is losing the House and Senate.

Yes, we are making progress _now_, but 2016 and prior was an absolute bona fide demolition of the Democrats under establishment rule.

Click to expand...

Bernie's support of the DNC is skittish at best. He is not a democrat, and his history clearly reveals he does not act like, nor support the democratic party anywhere near to the extent a real democrat would be expected to and would, as a natural reflex of being a democrat.

That's the point I was trying to make. that you can find a few instances where he backed a democrat, fundraised here and there, etc., doesn't really negate the point I'm making here.

"Caucusing with", all that means is that his leftist values do coincide with many democrat values, and naturally he is going to vote with dems where there is commonality, that's not the same thing as supporting the party like a democrat would.

Is Bernie Sanders a Democrat? | PolitiFact

"He was never really a party guy," Guma, the author of the book on Sanders’ legacy in Vermont, told the Daily Beast. "His career was to be a voice and a candidate."

Click to expand...

This goes back to my original point, that one of the two strategic errors Bernie made was not being a democrat. The reason is that there is no independent party apparatus, and without that, you have no party, so you are forced to caucus with a party closest to your values and feed off their power.

The other error, as I stated, was labeling himself as a democratic socialist.

But, if he is a true socialist, meaning he favors the state owning all the means of production and distribution, fine, I will accept that, but it's not clear to me that is his actual position. I was of the understanding that he favors the model of the netherlands, which is basically, capitalism for wants, socialism for needs.

MrPeanut said:

What did winning the popular vote get us? Democrats are only making inroads because literally the worst republican possible became the president. What happens when Trump is gone and we have a Pence type as president?

Click to expand...

Historically speaking, dems have been lazy during midterms. What dems are not doing that they should be doing is getting out the message that not voting in midterms has drastic long term consequences, and to spell out those consequences. I don't recall any democratic president doing this.

in the last 100 years, the majority vote got us the presidency. The fact it didn't this time was a fluke for Trump.

If we have the house, we can quarantine their agenda. So, let's win big in 2020/

OscarLevant said:

Bernie's support of the DNC is skittish at best. He is not a democrat, and his history clearly reveals he does not act like, nor support the democratic party anywhere near to the extent a real democrat would be expected to and would, as a natural reflex of being a democrat.

That's the point I was trying to make. that you can find a few instances where he backed a democrat, fundraised here and there, etc., doesn't really negate the point I'm making here.

"Caucusing with", all that means is that his leftist values do coincide with many democrat values, and naturally he is going to vote with dems where there is commonality, that's not the same thing as supporting the party like a democrat would.

Is Bernie Sanders a Democrat? | PolitiFact




This goes back to my original point, that one of the two strategic errors Bernie made was not being a democrat. The reason is that there is no independent party apparatus, and without that, you have no party, so you are forced to caucus with a party closest to your values and feed off their power.

The other error, as I stated, was labeling himself as a democratic socialist.

But, if he is a true socialist, meaning he favors the state owning all the means of production and distribution, fine, I will accept that, but it's not clear to me that is his actual position. I was of the understanding that he favors the model of the netherlands, which is basically, capitalism for wants, socialism for needs.

Click to expand...

But, if he is a true socialist

Click to expand...

People who believe Bernie to be a socialist are the same people who tend to believe Europe to be socialist....Which neither is in any way shape or form....

meaning he favors the state owning all the means of production and distribution

Click to expand...

He doesn't...sooo...I guess you don't have to accept that.

I was of the understanding that he favors the model of the netherlands, which is basically, capitalism for wants, socialism for needs.

Click to expand...

In a nutshell...pretty much this....

OscarLevant said:

Bernie has made tq strategic errors during the last primary. 1. He never joined the Democratic party or supported them in the past, and only did so during the primary out of expedience. he cant expect the DNC to choose him over Hillary, who has been a party supporter most of her life 2. He labeled himself as a socialist when, in fact, he is not a socialist, he is, as you say, a social democrat. By labeling himself as a socialist, he's making it hard for his backers or anyone running on a similar platform, for now, they are being labeled as socialists, and the right is red baiting us like crazy (though they would anyway).



Perez has deemed that, in order to win elections, we must run moderates, especially in the red states. So far, he's been winning elections, and making inroads to heavily red states. I say get dems elected first, then we move on details, platforms, values, etc.

Click to expand...

Perez is wrong. Perez isn't winning. He's just sitting on a boat that's riding a tide he had no play in. Bernie has been hitting the conservative states and turning people on policies with townhalls. yeah I think bernie should've joined the dems to show that he is trying to turn the dems more to the progressive side instead of fighting from the outside. But still... I don't see anywhere where perez gets any credit for anything happening beneficial to the dems.

Cons follow strong conviction or perceived strong conviction which is why they backed trump's tough talking BS. The bernie wing of the dems have solid, and clear goals. Something centrist DCCC dems don't have much of.

OscarLevant said:

Bernie's support of the DNC is skittish at best. He is not a democrat, and his history clearly reveals he does not act like, nor support the democratic party anywhere near to the extent a real democrat would be expected to and would, as a natural reflex of being a democrat.

That's the point I was trying to make. that you can find a few instances where he backed a democrat, fundraised here and there, etc., doesn't really negate the point I'm making here.

"Caucusing with", all that means is that his leftist values do coincide with many democrat values, and naturally he is going to vote with dems where there is commonality, that's not the same thing as supporting the party like a democrat would.

Is Bernie Sanders a Democrat? | PolitiFact

Click to expand...

Given he votes 95% of time time with the party as opposed to the more typical 80%, I'd say that constitutes considerable political support and alignment with the Dems, in addition to the fundraising he's clearly helped with in the past. Bernie may not be a Dem, and he may value his independence in refusing to adopt the label of Democrat, but he has contributed substantially to the party, and his beliefs are largely in line with it, barring a few, substantial issues (Medicare for all, free local college/trades, etc).

That said, the point is, the DNC can either favour a candidate despite the lack of ethics involved in such a move since our candidates should best represent the will of the party base, or claim its impartiality/lack of bias, but it can't do both. Yes, they can certainly choose to jump on the scale for Clinton, but in doing so, they should be upfront and say it, and let that be known. Their actions agitate me both because they were fundamentally dishonest/duplicitous, and because they interfered with the process which should be about who the party collectively wants (as opposed to a cabal of party leaders/insiders), and actually has the best shot of winning, not who is perceived as being more 'loyal' to it.

This goes back to my original point, that one of the two strategic errors Bernie made was not being a democrat. The reason is that there is no independent party apparatus, and without that, you have no party, so you are forced to caucus with a party closest to your values and feed off their power.

Click to expand...

I think Bernie has done far more to bolster the power of the Dem party, than he has 'fed' off of it, in terms of galvanizing the progressive/FDR wing.

The other error, as I stated, was labeling himself as a democratic socialist.

But, if he is a true socialist, meaning he favors the state owning all the means of production and distribution, fine, I will accept that, but it's not clear to me that is his actual position. I was of the understanding that he favors the model of the netherlands, which is basically, capitalism for wants, socialism for needs.

Click to expand...

As I said, I think the self-labeling as a democratic socialist is curious, but I've seen precious little evidence that it was a strategic misstep in terms of his actual appeal in the primaries (if you have any, I'd certainly like to see it), because yes, his actual beliefs/policy are social democrat in nature, per Scandinavia and northern Europe. Also as stated, it appears he was trying to detoxify the inevitable epithet of 'socialist/socialism' that would inevitably be used against him by Republicans no matter his self-identification, people who hilariously called Obama one of all people, and he generally succeeded.


Anyways, Bernie v Clinton is in the past now, and my focus is on the present/future; the establishment absolutely should not be making the same mistakes that alienated voters and cost them dearly, such as intervening on the basis of factionalism, and not any clearly demonstrated strategic purpose, or electoral success. Moreover, the DCCC is acting against fellow registered Democrats, not independents, in these cases.

Surrealistik said:

I think Bernie was trying to detoxify the 'socialism' word personally, which he has largely been successful at, though it's true he's much more a social democrat than a democratic socialist. I'm not sure what damage he's done to his brand however, that hasn't been grossly exceeded by the establishment wing opposite him.


I may ultimately forgive betrayals by the corporate/third way wing when it comes time to vote and I'm forced to pick between them and a worse alternative, but I will never forget them, nor will I fail to hold the party to account or expose those who engage in these inexcusable acts of factional power plays, and naked hypocrisy; these should be called out for what they are, and this sort of behaviour should never get a free pass. It needs to stop.

How can these assholes call for 'unity' when they're actively stoking the fires of division with this kind of egregious scale jumping? When they have, and continue to actively attack and sabotage the progressive/FDR wing of the party in a desperate attempt to hold onto power in defiance of the zeitgeist? The establishment brass is largely a bunch of ****eating, wagon circling hypocrites, and they have no legitimacy whatsoever; literally the only thing these scumbags have going for them is that they're not Republicans.

Click to expand...

Again, you're 100% spot on.
I too will never forget and they will feel the heat, too.
We can do this together, all of us.
My biggest regret re Bernie is that he didn't use that huge charisma and successful crowd-funding machine of his back around 2008-2010 by joining the party and retooling it.
I am convinced that he could have pulled it off to the point that, by 2016 HE WOULD have been the presumptive candidate, and the party would have a much different face today.

Entrenched power gives nothing to demands, it must be taken, and to take power one must be within the walls of the fortress. Bernie made a successful shot across the castle walls but we need the fire to be on the inside. Thanks to Bernie we now know HOW to use his type of tools ON the inside.

Surrealistik said:

Also as stated, it appears he was trying to detoxify the inevitable epithet of 'socialist/socialism' that would inevitably be used against him by Republicans no matter his self-identification, people who hilariously called Obama one of all people, and he generally succeeded.

Click to expand...

He could have detoxified it from within the Oval Office.
Again, I think the world of Bernie, I just think he was tackling too many windmills at the same time. The windmill he needed to tackle was winning the election as the Democratic Party candidate for President. All the other goals could have easily been confronted and pursued after the win.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

He could have detoxified it from within the Oval Office.
Again, I think the world of Bernie, I just think he was tackling too many windmills at the same time. The windmill he needed to tackle was winning the election as the Democratic Party candidate for President. All the other goals could have easily been confronted and pursued after the win.

Click to expand...

Overall it didn't seem to be much of a liability during the primaries, but I agree that he probably should have saved that fight for later and just taken up the more appropriate social democrat label.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Again, you're 100% spot on.
I too will never forget and they will feel the heat, too.
We can do this together, all of us.
My biggest regret re Bernie is that he didn't use that huge charisma and successful crowd-funding machine of his back around 2008-2010 by joining the party and retooling it.
I am convinced that he could have pulled it off to the point that, by 2016 HE WOULD have been the presumptive candidate, and the party would have a much different face today.

Entrenched power gives nothing to demands, it must be taken, and to take power one must be within the walls of the fortress. Bernie made a successful shot across the castle walls but we need the fire to be on the inside. Thanks to Bernie we now know HOW to use his type of tools ON the inside.

Click to expand...

I think that joining the party might well hurt his appeal among independents; it's a pro-con thing as opposed to being a clear no-brainer, but in balance, I think he probably should, if only so it would deprive his detractors within the party of one of their main rhetorical points against him.

Though I may not share your optimism that a more preemptive approach would have shifted the party towards him as the presumptive candidate given all the entrenched, vested interests bolstering corporate/third way Democrats like Clinton, and their domination of party leadership (just look at how they're handling the party now in the wake of 2016 and their loss of every chamber of government; they've literally learned nothing by choice), I do think it would have given him a much better shot, and it may well have been enough to put him over the top given how quickly he went from being a political no-name at 3% to a powerful political icon at 43%.